To the seven churches . . . from Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness . . .

(Revelation 1:5)

Once upon a time there was a mouse named Chicory Cheese. No one in his large family was very famous, except, perhaps, his uncle Chucky, who owned a big string of pizza parlors. But I can tell you this: Chicory was famous in heaven. Whenever the High King sent Chicory Cheese on a mission, all the holy angels quickly gathered round to watch!

One winter’s evening quite close to Christmas, Chicory was walking home after a hard day’s work. On his right, he passed Grandpa Adam’s field. Once again he paused to gaze at the old dead oak, standing all alone in the middle of the barren expanse. The sight of it always made him sad. Years back, Chicory’s uncle Isaiah, the village schoolteacher, had taken a hundred baby mice to play in that field. They never returned. It was the greatest mystery—and the greatest sorrow—in all Hickoryville.

Read More

Voters in North Carolina have just made theirs the thirty-first state in which marriage will be between a man and a woman, exclusively. President Obama has responded by endorsing gay marriage. Needless to say, an intensification of the national debate on this issue will ensue. In this post, I make a case for the affirmation of heterosexual marriage in law. Hopefully, these few thoughts will help my fellow Christians enter the public square and engage in this debate with wisdom, courage, gentleness, and respect.

The case begins with an assumption, namely, that both nature and conscience reveal the existence of an infinite personal Creator, a God who rules, blesses, and judges all nations according to his holy will. This was, of course, the faith of our Founding Fathers, who held these great truths to be self-evident and foundational to the good order of any society.

On this assumption, it is a matter of simple intellectual honesty to observe the striking physical and psychological complementarity of men and women, as well as the universal pattern of human behavior, and to conclude that God has a design for marriage. In particular, he clearly designs marriage as a permanent union of one man and one woman for the purpose of mutual support, enjoyment, procreation, the spiritual and physical nurture of children, and the resulting health of society at large.

Such conclusions, though resisted by some, nevertheless belong to the “spiritual common sense” of the entire family of man. This is why all world religions define heterosexual marriage as the norm, and why no culture in recorded history has ever defined it otherwise.

Read More

Barring the unforeseen, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will square off in the November presidential elections. As most of you know, the National Right to Life Committee and Massachusetts Right to Life have both endorsed Romney. His stated positions and track record on the life issues are far superior to those of President Obama. Yes, in recent years Romney has changed his views, but the movement has been in the right direction: towards a higher and higher regard for the sanctity of human life and the need of its protection in law. Hence, the NRLC endorsement.

But there is a problem. All political analysts agree that Romney can win, but that the election will be close. Romney will definitely need every vote he can get. For this reason, pro-life leaders are concerned; concerned that evangelical Christians, uneasy with Romney’s LDS faith, may sit out the election.

Such political passivity could be decisive and catastrophic. Therefore, as a former pastor, bush-league theologian, and long-time pro-lifer, I want to address this issue. In what follows, I am writing especially to my evangelical brothers and sisters. I want to explain why I do not believe it is wrong for an evangelical to vote for an LDS candidate, and why it may well be our duty to do so.

Let me begin at the end: In the end, every Christian must honor the voice of conscience. The apostle wrote, “Whatever is not of faith is sin.” If you sincerely believe that a vote for an LDS candidate is wrong, you cannot vote for him. But again, let me explain, biblically, why I think there is no sin in such a vote.

The crucial text is Romans 13:1-7. Here the apostle explains the purpose of the State. He tells us that earthly rulers—presidents, congressmen, judges, law enforcement personnel—are actually “ministers of God” with a unique calling. No, these ministers are not called to preach their faith or administer sacraments. Rather, they are called to one thing and one thing only: the administration of justice. In order to preserve peace and order in a sinful world, God calls temporal leaders to codify, promulgate, and enforce his moral law, a law that is written on the hearts of all people everywhere, whatever their faith may be.

This is why evangelical Christians living in a democracy may lawfully vote for a man whose faith they do not share. Is the candidate an evangelical Christian, a Roman Catholic, a devout Jew, a B’hai, a Mormon, etc.? No matter. We are not voting for a pastor or a priest. We are simply voting for someone who will faithfully and justly uphold God’s moral law.

Here, then, are the questions I believe evangelical Christians should be asking as the election draws near: Does this candidate follow the Declaration of Independence in acknowledging the existence of a divine Creator and Lawgiver, however well or poorly the candidate might conceive of him? Do his policy positions line up with God’s law as revealed in the Bible? Does he seem to be a person of sound character? Can he be trusted to do what he promises on the campaign trail?

When I examine Governor Romney with these questions in mind, I am comfortable with what I see. Yes, as an evangelical Christian, I wish he understood certain crucial doctrinal matters differently, and to this end I pray for him and his family. But again, at present I see nothing in his worldview or policy positions to disqualify him from public office. Moreover, I also see that Providence is giving me an opportunity to vote for him, and that a failure to do so will only increase the likelihood of another four years under the militantly anti-life Obama administration.

So then, speaking personally, my path is clear. And right up till November I will be praying for all my evangelical brethren that God will make their path clear, as well.

In Him was life, and His life was the light of men.

John 1:4

When Jesus walked the earth, all the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—dwelt in him in bodily form. So too did the eternal life of the Godhead. In him was life, the eternal life of God Triune.

Whenever he spoke or performed miracles, the divine life within Jesus became the light of men. The glory of God shone forth in all he did, filling the darkness of this present evil world with light.

As we know from the Gospels, some were drawn to the light. They said, “Lord, to whom shall we go; you have the words of life.”

Others, however, hated the light, sought to extinguish it, and, for a brief moment at the end of Jesus’ ministry, actually thought  they did.

This is a great mystery, one that should cause us to fall down before God and marvel at his amazing ways.

In Christ there was life, and yet, because of our sin, that life could not get out of him and into us. Therefore, God decided to let the darkness extinguish the light—ever so briefly— so that the light and life of Christ, at long last, after ages and ages, might come again to dwell in man.

You remember that during Holy Week, just before Jesus’ passion, Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, came to him. She brought an alabaster vial, full of costly oil of spikenard. Without a word, she broke the vial and poured the contents on Jesus’ head, anointing him for burial. John carefully notes that when she did, the fragrance of the perfume filled the whole house.

Beloveds, this is how it was with Jesus, and how it is with us. God the Father, on the Cross, broke the alabaster vial of his body, so that he, bearing our sins and receiving in his own person the just penalty due them, might make atonement for us.

But why did he make atonement for us? So that  he could pour out the oil of the divine life—not just upon us—but into us. So that in us there might be life, and that our life might be the light of men.

John brings the prologue of his gospel to a close with this: “And the light shines in the darkness; the darkness did not overcome it.”

Why does the light still shine in the darkness, both now and till the end of the age?

It is because our Lord was willing to let the Father shatter the alabaster vial, so that the divine life within him—and all the light and fragrance it was meant to bestow upon a sin-darkened world—might be in his new body, in us.

Father, Lord Jesus, thank you so much for this inexpressibly great gift. May we always walk worthily of it, in your Spirit, bringing the life and light and fragrance of Christ to others wherever we go. Amen. 

This is the LAST (yes, you read that right!) in a series of posts dealing with the proper interpretation of Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy (OTKP). If you’re new to this subject (or to my blog), you’ll want to read the essay with which I introduced the series (just click here).

My goal in these eschatological adventures is two-fold.

First, I want to open up something of the Christ-centered truth and beauty of OTKP to my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Secondly, I want to reason a little with my premillennial brethren. In particular, I want to make the case that we all will best understand, enjoy, and profit from OTKP when we see that its true sphere of fulfillment is: 1) Christ, 2) the New Covenant he instituted by his blood, 3) the two-staged spiritual Kingdom he has already introduced (and will soon consummate), and, 4) the New Covenant community he is creating out of elect Jews and Gentiles: the Church.

In short, I would like my premillennial brothers to reconsider the amillennial approach to the interpretation of OTKP.

Since the end of the age will soon be upon us, it is important that we stand together as much as possible. Seeing eye to eye on eschatology would definitely help. These essays—and the book in progress from which they are extracted—represent my best effort at contributing to that worthy goal.

Since the prophetic texts I deal with are quite long, I have not reproduced them here. You will need to bring an open Bible to each blog. My hope and prayer is that you will enjoy them all.

Jerusalem In That Day: Interpreting Zechariah 12-14

We turn our attention now to the most prolific—and most fascinating—of the three post-exilic prophets: Zechariah (fl. 500 BC). Like his rough contemporaries, Haggai and Malachi, this great OT priest, seer, and martyr comforted a subjugated and much enfeebled nation with visions and prophecies of a glorious future: the coming of the Messiah, the final defeat of Israel’s enemies, and the final restoration of God’s people, land, temple, priesthood, and holy city—Jerusalem.

Our focus in this study is Zechariah 12-14. It is the second of two lengthy prophetic oracles dealing with the future Kingdom of God. To better understand the second, let us look briefly at the first.

(To continue reading, please click here)